Spring Break
Speak out against the Institute
The Daily Campus Ed Board
Issue date: 1/26/07 Section: Opinion
We're glad to see the debate on campus about the Bush Library complex.
Frankly, it should have happened a long time ago. But better late than never.
There are important issues that need to be addressed before all of the details get set in stone.
We support the library and museum coming to campus, but we still have reservations about the institute's role on and whether it should be here.
President Turner said Wednesday that the complex is an all-or-nothing deal.
We find that hard to believe.
SMU has the upper hand in this debate, and should act accordingly. No one wants to go to Waco or Baylor - especially Bush and his library. We all know that his ranch in Crawford is one big act for TV to show that he's an average guy who likes clearing brush in his spare time.
SMU has been the frontrunner since day one, and now is the time to use that to our advantage.
Certain guarantees must be demanded by the SMU administration for the good of the school.
The most troubling aspect about the institute is the apparent lack of control the university will have. The idea of a having a complex affiliated with SMU without the school having any control over it is ridiculous at best and an insult at worse.
There must be oversight from SMU on the board that runs the institute. At least half of the controlling body should have current SMU faculty or administrators so the school's interests can be represented.
The appointment of staff or fellows to the institute should follow the same procedures schools at SMU do; they shouldn't just be hired directly by whomever is in charge of the institute. These people will represent SMU and the university should be part of the hiring process.
Those are two simple items.
Yet apparently, neither of them are going to happen if nothing changes.
This is a huge problem.
And we aren't alone in these concerns.
Some of the faculty have done a good job in forcing the administration to be more forthcoming with specifics. However, there is still more to do.
It seems as if the faculty as a whole are willing to leave the situation as it is right now.
If a two-hour meeting with President Turner is all it takes to lessen the desire to seek answers or question what could be a threat to SMU's academic integrity, then the faculty will have let the entire SMU community down.
Now is not the time to back off.
Our reputation is at stake, and we shouldn't let it go without a fight.
Frankly, it should have happened a long time ago. But better late than never.
There are important issues that need to be addressed before all of the details get set in stone.
We support the library and museum coming to campus, but we still have reservations about the institute's role on and whether it should be here.
President Turner said Wednesday that the complex is an all-or-nothing deal.
We find that hard to believe.
SMU has the upper hand in this debate, and should act accordingly. No one wants to go to Waco or Baylor - especially Bush and his library. We all know that his ranch in Crawford is one big act for TV to show that he's an average guy who likes clearing brush in his spare time.
SMU has been the frontrunner since day one, and now is the time to use that to our advantage.
Certain guarantees must be demanded by the SMU administration for the good of the school.
The most troubling aspect about the institute is the apparent lack of control the university will have. The idea of a having a complex affiliated with SMU without the school having any control over it is ridiculous at best and an insult at worse.
There must be oversight from SMU on the board that runs the institute. At least half of the controlling body should have current SMU faculty or administrators so the school's interests can be represented.
The appointment of staff or fellows to the institute should follow the same procedures schools at SMU do; they shouldn't just be hired directly by whomever is in charge of the institute. These people will represent SMU and the university should be part of the hiring process.
Those are two simple items.
Yet apparently, neither of them are going to happen if nothing changes.
This is a huge problem.
And we aren't alone in these concerns.
Some of the faculty have done a good job in forcing the administration to be more forthcoming with specifics. However, there is still more to do.
It seems as if the faculty as a whole are willing to leave the situation as it is right now.
If a two-hour meeting with President Turner is all it takes to lessen the desire to seek answers or question what could be a threat to SMU's academic integrity, then the faculty will have let the entire SMU community down.
Now is not the time to back off.
Our reputation is at stake, and we shouldn't let it go without a fight.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 15
Andrew Baker
posted 1/26/07 @ 2:00 AM EST
This is perhaps the most disrespectful piece of journalistic trash I have ever encountered. To begin, the Ed Board says that it finds the "all-or-nothing" deal hard to believe. (Continued…)
Ben Johnson
posted 1/26/07 @ 7:51 AM EST
Thanks for this fine editorial, it is important to know that student leaders are raising many of the same objections as those of us on the faculty wary of the institute. (Continued…)
BillD
BillD
posted 1/26/07 @ 10:02 AM EST
I don't understand why people opposed to the Bush Doctrine don't see the placing of the library and institute as an opportunity to be on the frontline of debate. (Continued…)
David Cole
posted 1/26/07 @ 11:01 AM EST
Bravo!
Ben
posted 1/26/07 @ 12:41 PM EST
Here here!
As for BillD - please read the article again. They are FOR the library but the institute is not a place to 'study' and 'debate' the Bush Doctrine. (Continued…)
JD
posted 1/26/07 @ 7:12 PM EST
Why are people up in arms now? SMU has been trying to get the library since President Bush took office. It just seems suspicious that people are making an issue now and did not input their opinions the last four years or at least when we became one of the finalists. (Continued…)
lisa m
posted 1/26/07 @ 7:21 PM EST
it is important for us as a community to know the intentions of those who lead us. questioning those in charge helps us remember we have a voice as well. (Continued…)
Anne Clark
posted 1/26/07 @ 7:26 PM EST
What I don't understand is why people assume that a think-tank can still serve it's purpose under censorship from an outside source. The Institute is specifically meant to promote conservative ideas that go along with the legacy of the Bush presidency - they won't be interested in building a conservative think-tank that has to answer to a bi-partisan SMU based faculty board. (Continued…)
Alex Rawlings
posted 1/26/07 @ 8:07 PM EST
What I don't understand is why Bush is even bothering to place his library at a university if that university is going to have no control over its operations. (Continued…)
Natalie
posted 1/26/07 @ 10:16 PM EST
The Bush library will be built as SMU regardless of whatever debate is going on now. They've known it for at least 2 years. If you're against it, sorry, but it's happening. (Continued…)
Post a Comment